Last night the Council voted 9-4 to amend the city budget by adding $2.6 million in merit-based salary raises for city employees. Judy voted in favor of the amendment; here’s the text of her statement at last night’s meeting explaining her vote:
I have to tell you that for me, this was very complicated . I read through the stacks of papers and read through them again, and here’s where I came down.
In 2004, when the policy changed in regard to the use of the pay survey, rather than have the pay-survey findings implemented, as had been done in the past, the rules and the language were changed just to reflect the annual pay survey, but it doesn’t really mandate the adoption of the findings. This was the “fix” to the earlier system that everyone seemed to agree was unsustainable. So the question in front of us is, “Does the fix go too far?” The current pay survey shows that the average city employee is compensated 3 to 4 percent below what the market is compensating the same type of worker. And when you look at the new bonus system, it shows that the city is issuing bonuses that are around 1.2 percent of an employee’s wage. The market is closer to 6 percent of an employee’s wage.
Another thing I struggled with was that benefits are somewhat of a problem to quantify. The survey showed that the city health benefits are about right for the market. However, paid time off, sick and vacation leave, and retirement are slightly higher than market benefits, and CSA seems to think that this is in some way reflective of the longevity of our staff. For example, in the market if an employee has worked for an employer for less than 5 years, they get 2 weeks of paid time off. Then once they’ve worked there for 5 years, they might get 3 weeks of paid time off. So the fact that the average city employee might get more than 2 paid weeks off per year may really just reflect that a lot of the workers have been here a long time. If they were with a single employer for the same length of time out in the market, they might get the same level of benefit.
It comes down to a philosophical difference. I think that some who might be against greater compensation feel that the benefit package the city offers makes up for a lower rate of actual cash compensation. But should a bigger part of your salary be dedicated to benefits and take away from the other life issues you have to pay for? When Councilman Linkhart got the call from the city employee who said “Benefits don’t put food on the table,” that’s exactly true. Have we reduced ourselves to a system where people are just working for benefits?
As I look out in the audience of people who are here, I’ve worked with many of you at Parks and Recreation, and I worked with many of you as an aide to Councilwoman Ortega. My staff and I work with you every day. And I want to tell you that I think that what is before us is a modest thing for us to offer to our city employees. And I’m proud to be able to support Councilwoman Boigon in her effort to improve your quality of life.
